US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[BotanyBay]

Armstrong is still under the threat of the USADA stripping him of titles. They are not a GJ and can act on far less a burden of proof. As we've seen today, that is a reality.

Grand juries (themselves) have NO burden of proof (to indict). This is why the old American legal saying goes:

"A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". This is not to say that I think the GJ is still seated and "going indy" with their own investigation... but it is ALWAYS a possibility.

Let me put it this way... If the GJ was shown TONS of evidence that shows LA's guilt, and the prosecutors decided to drop the case due to politcal pressure, and there was still some "term" left, I can't see them just letting the matter drop. But here's what we'll never know: If they were asked to indict, and the GJ voted "No", then the matter is truly dead. Unfortunately, in America, we never get the answer to that. The "no" vote is secret.

 

[Berzin]

What happens then to the international authorities and the collaborative work they partook in?

Is the evidence they procured independent of the US Federal investigation?

Does Dr. Ferrari get a pass from the Italians? What about the financial accounts that were supposedly frozen?

 

[BillytheKid]

I bet that Novi and his team are informing them as we pontificate in the clinic.

Hence the fanboys still posting in fear that it aint over.

I bet the ladies in the Yellow Rose were singing, but were any of them fat?

Your delusional in the first aspect of your statement, but I agree Armstrong must be worried about the loss of his titles which the USADA can do fewer legal barriers.

 

[straydog]

Grand juries (themselves) have NO burden of proof (to indict). This is why the old American legal saying goes:

"A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich". This is not to say that I think the GJ is still seated and "going indy" with their own investigation... but it is ALWAYS a possibility.

Let me put it this way... If the GJ was shown TONS of evidence that shows LA's guilt, and the prosecutors decided to drop the case due to politcal pressure, and there was still some "term" left, I can't see them just letting the matter drop. But here's what we'll never know: If they were asked to indict, and the GJ voted "No", then the matter is truly dead. Unfortunately, in America, we never get the answer to that. The "no" vote is secret.

hmmm...very very interesting!

 

[BotanyBay]

Your delusional in the first aspect of your statement, but I agree Armstrong must be worried about the loss of his titles which the USADA can do fewer legal barriers.

USADA will need to get the data independently, as when a GJ fails to indict, all of the testimony stays secret. And even if Georgie, Stephy and Tyler all told the truth when put on a really "hot" seat, that doesn't mean they'll say the same things to the USADA people (under no penalty of perjury).

Edit: Of course, the prosecutors can give the USADA copies of whatever is legal to give, and they can possibly bring perjury charges if they later learn that certain people said one thing in a GJ room and another in a USADA conference room.

 

[BillytheKid]

The Feds also had samples sent over from the AFLD (not sure which year) but even if they were tested by the Feds and not in an approved lab etc. that may not amount to anything.

If the proper procedure hasn’t been followed then I doubt even a positive urine sample would amount to a sanction.

Now in saying all this I’m not sure what sort of evidence the Feds managed to gather. They were going for some time so they must have pickup up a lot. Their case was more based around finances rather than doping but I’m sure there’s some good stuff hidden away.

If you look at the T-Mobile trials. Riders testified that Kloden went to Freiburg for a blood transfusion in 2006. They listed down his drug usage and still no ban for our teflon friend. And those testimonies weren’t even from “disgruntled” teammates. Even in Germany they didn’t put Kloden away then there’s no hope of Armstrong in the US.

Felony charges in recent times require actual physical evidence. The judge rules what is admissible. We may never know what was on or off the table.

 

[BotanyBay]

""Our legal system failed us. This is what happens when you have a lot of money and you can buy attorneys who have people in high places in the Department of Justice."

Go get em, Betsy!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Felony charges in recent times require actual physical evidence. The judge rules what is admissible. We may never know what was on or off the table.

Specific Federal reference for these claims please. Otherwise, it's more and really bad armchair lawyering.

 

[pmcg76]

USADA will need to get the data independently, as when a GJ fails to indict, all of the testimony stays secret. And even if Georgie, Stephy and Tyler all told the truth when put on a really "hot" seat, that doesn't mean they'll say the same things to the USADA people (under no penalty of perjury).

Edit: Of course, the prosecutors can give the USADA copies of whatever is legal to give, and they can possibly bring perjury charges if they later learn that certain people said one thing in a GJ room and another in a USADA conference room.

r.

But wouldnt the copies be sufficent as evidence for USADA?

 

[Benotti69]

r.

But wouldn't the copies be sufficient as evidence for USADA?

I suspect USADA was in on the doping side of the investigation throughout.

Feds would be sharing info to get it verified.

 

[BillytheKid]

Specific Federal reference for these claims please. Otherwise, it's more and really bad armchair lawyering.

That's a good question, but the answer is apparently not common knowledge to some. This should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

You can google all day on the topic, if you want more.

 

[BillytheKid]

That wikipedia post is hard to understand. Here's another link, scroll down to burden of proof.

http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

 

[Velodude]

USADA and WADA would not have quickly made public announcements of continuing their investigation against Armstrong for doping if it was all on a wing and a prayer that evidence for a non analytical positive could turn up.

They believe they have a case.

Kyle Leogrande of Rock Racing was suspended by USADA for a non analytical positive that required only the sworn affidavit of the team soigneur of a conversation between them about Leogrande's drug taking.

No fellow riders from Rock Racing testified.

If the USADA recent case of extending the UCI statute of limitations can be applied then the 2001 "positive" at the TdS, the 1999 corticoid coverup and the scientific testing of 1999 "B" samples for EPO can be introduced as circumstantial evidence as, even though not positive under the Code, the results reflected drug use.

 

[Race Radio]

Supposing for a moment that the GJ testimony cannot be shared.....I honestly don't see any of the above incriminating themselves, which they would have to realistically to make anything stick.

As for Stephanie...again only relevant to pre cancer...nothing for 99-05.

JV? Well the enigma that is JV is a tough one. From what I've heard he has no direct evidence from his time on Postal, just suspicions.

This close to the end of their careers I don't see VDV, Levi or DZ saying anything. I think they will take this as their cue to put a line under it.

As to the Novitsky thing...of course, you're right...he didn't call it off...and I think it will be interesting to see why it was...but my feeling is that his Elliot Ness ness might have been exaggerated....I somehow suspect after Bonds and then this some of his bosses are going to be questioning his value for money/ hit rate.

Honestly, and this isn't "I told you so". But I think people might start questioning his instincts for going after the "money" shot of cases, and how it has possibly made him slightly myopic to the realistic chances of actually building a case.

Anyway we can discuss it more when I toast you at the Marmotte this year

Peace

I see no way the GJ testimony is provided. George, and many others, did not talk to the GJ. They spoke directly to investigators. This can be shared with USADA and most likely already has been

 

[BillytheKid]

http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

This guy has it right. One can quibble about the percentages, but a number above 90% (beyond a reasonable doubt) in criminal vs. 50% civil. The "burden of proof" in the 30-40 year has generally been harder to obtain in high-profile cases.

An example would be a good lawyer tying an investigator with access to evidence as having made racist statements against the defendant's ethnic group....

 

[straydog]

USADA and WADA would not have quickly made public announcements of continuing their investigation against Armstrong for doping if it was all on a wing and a prayer that evidence for a non analytical positive could turn up.

They believe they have a case.

Kyle Leogrande of Rock Racing was suspended by USADA that required only the sworn affidavit of the team soigneur of a conversation between them about Leogrande's drug taking.

No fellow riders from Rock Racing testified.

If the USADA recent case of extending the UCI statute of limitations can be applied then the 2001 "positive" at the TdS, the 1999 corticoid coverup and the scientific testing of 1999 "B" samples for EPO can be introduced as circumstantial evidence as, even though not positive under the Code, the results reflected drug use.

No....Joe Papp had a photograph of Leogrande doing the old thumbs up routine in front of his purchase, and if memory serves me right a very well mannered thank you note on his receipt....not just a sworn affidavit...as you say.

99 samples...they have already been there and failed....likewise the TUE....is what it says on the tin...the rest is just hearsay from an ex soigneur about it's dating....this is hardly looking watertight...even you must see that?

 

[thehog]

No....Joe Papp had a photograph of Leogrande doing the old thumbs up routine in front of his purchase, and if memory serves me right a very well mannered thank you note on his receipt....not just a sworn affidavit...as you say.

99 samples...they have already been there and failed....likewise the TUE....is what it says on the tin...the rest is just hearsay from an ex soigneur about it's dating....this is hardly looking watertight...even you must see that?

In addition Leogrande could never afford the sort of legal armory Armstrong can.

I'm looking forward to the Tour with no Contador and Lance riding the Radioshack bus with the Shlecks!

Phil and Paul will be going ga ga and it be 1999 all over again.

If this was a nightmare its about to become true! Who would have thought.

 

[VeloCity]

No....Joe Papp had a photograph of Leogrande doing the old thumbs up routine in front of his purchase, and if memory serves me right a very well mannered thank you note on his receipt....not just a sworn affidavit...as you say.

99 samples...they have already been there and failed....likewise the TUE....is what it says on the tin...the rest is just hearsay from an ex soigneur about it's dating....this is hardly looking watertight...even you must see that?

Who says that there aren't receipts or other more significant evidence that Novitzky has unearthed that he's passed on to the USADA? Remember, Novitzky's investigation wasn't about the doping per se, it was about the fraud et al. I wouldn't be surprised if, during the course of that investigation, that they uncovered doping-related stuff that wasn't of much use to them but would be of great interest to the USADA. That, imo, may be why the USADA is anxious to continue, not because of the '99 samples or the stuff that's already common knowledge, but because of the new stuff that Novitzky unearthed.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That wikipedia post is hard to understand. Here's another link, scroll down to burden of proof.

http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm

Rejected!
1. No Federal specificity.
2. What crimes? What evidence?
3. You are using a non-specific explanation dated 1998.

I know enough about the law to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. I don't either, but I don't publish totally insufficient explanations to justify my world view.

Awful armchair lawyering claim stands.

 

[BotanyBay]

I suspect USADA was in on the doping side of the investigation throughout.

Feds would be sharing info to get it verified.

I'm sure there is / was a back and forth exchange of info. Remember, pre-Novi, the USADA didn't have their crosshairs set. Now, post-Novi, they're going out of their way to say that they're not finished with him.

 

[goober]

Who says that there aren't receipts or other more significant evidence that Novitzky has unearthed that he's passed on to the USADA? Remember, Novitzky's investigation wasn't about the doping per se, it was about the fraud et al. I wouldn't be surprised if, during the course of that investigation, that they uncovered doping-related stuff that wasn't of much use to them but would be of great interest to the USADA. That, imo, may be why the USADA is anxious to continue, not because of the '99 samples or the stuff that's already common knowledge, but because of the new stuff that Novitzky unearthed.

Nope. They did not.

 

[BillytheKid]

Rejected!
1. No Federal specificity.
2. What crimes? What evidence?
3. You are using a non-specific explanation dated 1998.

I know enough about the law to tell you you don't know what you are talking about. I don't either, but I don't publish totally insufficient explanations to justify my world view.

Awful armchair lawyering claim stands.

Oh please. You saying the sky is green.

There is no specific statute it is base on the legal precedent (that is how previous cases have been tried. For example, The New York Time Co.vs. Sullivan, 1960 set a precedent that actual malice had to be proven in libel cases against the press reports.

The prosecution just did not fold up shop for nothing. The precedent of a higher burden of proof is establish and upheld by many previous legal cases.
Sometimes the cases are appeal to the Supreme Court. Such cases can change the way judges can rule on the admission of evidence.

Do I really have to spell it out for you? There has been no landmark decision since 1998 that I am aware of. If there has been, let me know.

 

[Velodude]

No....Joe Papp had a photograph of Leogrande doing the old thumbs up routine in front of his purchase, and if memory serves me right a very well mannered thank you note on his receipt....not just a sworn affidavit...as you say.

99 samples...they have already been there and failed....likewise the TUE....is what it says on the tin...the rest is just hearsay from an ex soigneur about it's dating....this is hardly looking watertight...even you must see that?

Yes, but no riders' testimonies and a photograph is only circumstantial evidence as is the receipt as is the landlady's drug haul.

Leogrande dodged a previous positive through failing to pass on the "A" sample but passing on the "B" samples. The AAA panel considered that the samples, though not constituting an AAF, reflected the use of EPO as circumstantial evidence in support.

Mike Anderson, LA's estranged former PA, provided an affidavit in another proceedings that LA admitted to him of drug use and he found drugs in LA's Girona apartment.

I would expect that Anderson would be precluded from personally providing evidence under expected confidentiality restraints of the settlement.

But if the prospective AAA tribunal can accept same fact evidence (from another proceeding) as admissable evidence then his published affidavit would supplement the circumstantial evidence.

I think you had better revise your beliefs on the 99 situation. It was not a TUE but a backdated prescription for a cover-up. A TUE cannot be backdated.

How many riders do you know have experienced saddle sores before a short prologue on the first day of a multi stage tour after reducing the workload in a taper preparation?

The 99 scientific analysis has not been failed unless you are relying on the universally criticized and flawed Vrijman Report commissioned by LA's historical donee, the UCI.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Oh please. You saying the sky is green.

There is no specific statute it is base on the legal precedent (that is how previous cases have been tried. For example, The New York Time Co.vs. Sullivan, 1960 set a precedent that actual malice had to be proven in libel cases against the press reports.

What precedent? What charge? What case being prosecuted? You are acting as if you are some authority on the matter and that there is a case in front of a judge when there is nothing of the kind.

The prosecution just did not fold up shop for nothing.

You assume complete knowledge of why they folded up shop. Do you have access to more and specific information in the matter? Please, be specific.

Are you a lawyer with Federal litigation experience? Yes or no will suffice.

My point being you are stating assumptions as if they are fact. Unless you have specific evidence to the contrary, you are as in the dark as the rest of us.

 

[schnebit]

More taxpayer money well-spent...